Re: PART I -- RE: Theos-World RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?

DTB I agree, not relevant. Books contain ideas, and it is to those I
refer. SECRET DOCTRINE displays them, I don't need interpretations -- I
prefer to go directly to any source.

Yes, the book, The Secret Doctrine is a printed text, which was intended
to convey certain ideas. People read this book and get different
meanings out of it.

I intensely resent being "talked down to," as everyone's mind is derived
from the UNIVERSAL MIND, there are only students and seekers and no
"authorities."

Believe me Dallas, I am not talking down to you.

So why bother about "traditions?" What is gained thereby?

Because "traditions" are part of the normal structure of our lives
through which people generally orient themselves to their reality. The
gain comes from learning to recognize which beliefs are a product of
tradition and which come through direct realization.

And why chain ones expressions to some "norm ?" Who benefits?

That is the whole point--to unchain one's expressions from some norm.

If one suspects or denies the accuracy op of the information given in the
SECRET DOCTRINE, because of personal likes or dislikes -- I don't believe
that alters the power or depth of the presentation.
On the other hand if we don't read what is there, we will remain ignorant of
certain facts that cold be of great importance.

It is not a question about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the
information. That kind of thinking brings us back to making the text
the authority and thus binding ourselves to that text. I realize that
this is the standard essentialist approach. This approach does not work
for this generation, so we do not use it. Here is how we use the SD:

We hold day long SD seminars on a quarterly basis. In this format,
there are no experts lecturing on what the SD says; we do not sit around
and read the text to each other; nor do we as students tell each other
what we think the text said. Rather, students are given sections which
they study and research on their own. We then meet, and the students
share their discoveries--which always goes way beyond the text. The
difference between this method and those I have seen used in various
Theosophical traditions is that the students in our group express the
ideas they discovered in the SD in their own words. They do not
memorize passages in the text, nor do they adopt a jargon. None of them
have memorized the three fundamental propositions, but they can all
explain, each in their own unique way, what those three fundamental
propositions are, and how they relate to the rest of the book. For our
approach, It is not about accuracy or inaccuracy of the text, nor about
accurately quoting the text. It is about the new realizations the
students come to by engaging the text and exploring the subject matter
on their own. The point of these seminars is embodied the process of
understanding, not in the learning of information per se. One can hear
the difference in the way these people talk about Theosophy. They do
not memorize and utter phrases. They do not use technical terminology.
They know the terms, but they also know how to talk about Theosophy to
those who never heard of Theosophy.

DTB I do not feel influenced by the time, generation, or any of the
current buzz words or concepts -- I prefer to time tested ones. So I employ
those I find to any situation or problem. One less category to worry about.

I don't normally use any buzz words, neither the current ones nor the
"time tested ones." If I do, it is in full awareness, and usually
calculated to communicate a certain effect. I believe that the
important thing is not whether we use use buzz words, old or new, but
that we are mindful of the fact that we are doing so. An example comes
to mind: At the beginning of the civil rights movement, in the early
60s, people of color used to come into the coffee houses with new
slogans and banners. The new slogans were stunning--they communicated
in a few words a long history of oppression and way to bring it to an
end. After a year or so, they still came in uttering the same slogans
and waving the same banners. But, by that time, they had become so used
to uttering them that they had already stopped thinking about what they
really met. They had put themselves in a box, and lost the ability to
see beyond it. They had to reinvent themselves. Then it was W.E.B.
Dubois. Later it became civil rights marches. Personal growth, as well
as social progress continues as long as we are able to see through and
step out of the forms that we create for ourselves.

Look at history. Whose records stand out? The hoi polloi, or the Platos and the Pythagorases?
What makes the difference?

I look at history and at the present. Every generation has its great
minds.

DTB One starts by humbly learning French as a language. Pride gets one
nowhere. Everyone can teach us something. Conformity has its price !

Yes.

DTB I am a product of my own decisions and work. I say that the U L T
method and attitude has been most helpful -- at least I am NOT burdened with
the need to excuse the poor judgment of those who have diverted theosophical
study away from HPB and the Masters.

Are you aware that this is a stock answer from ULT tradition?

But I would say that time spent on the study of THEOSOPHY is better than
that spent on studying the "history"(through their writings) of those
individuals who have seemingly influenced many, and caused the splits and
rivalries we now witness in what ought to be a unity. Such a Unity
(originally outlined but Olcott and HPB (see "Key") can only be based on
principles impartially applied and rigidly adhered to.

Are you aware that this view of Theosophical history is the view of
ULT's historical account in "The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950?
My own view is that history (of any subject) is an open and unending
inquiry. Interestingly, the ancient Greeks also saw it as an open
inquiry.

I freely admit my connection with U L T as the freest and clearest of
the many "organisms" that employ the word "THEOSOPHY"

Others say the same about their traditions.

However, as is said therein (Declaration of U L T ) I reserve my own
individual decision-making power to myself -- as in fact everyone does,
whether they say that they "belong" to one "society" or another, or to none.

DTB
Of course, if the teachings of THEOSOPHY in the S D are to you only one of
many traditions, then it may useless to continue and let us both be
satisfied that there are in the Universe adequate room for many approaches
to TRUTH.

JHE
It appears that you are not tracking with me. Traditions are social
constructions created by people acting in common interests over a period
of time and handed down. Those social constructions include beliefs,
opinions, customs, rites etc. The SD is not a tradition, but a book.
As a book, it plays a part in all of the Theosophical traditions that I
know of.
----------------------------------------

DTB I agree, not relevant. Books contain ideas, and it is to those I
refer. SECRET DOCTRINE displays them, I don't need interpretations -- I
prefer to go directly to any source.
I intensely resent being "talked down to," as everyone's mind is derived
from the UNIVERSAL MIND, there are only students and seekers and no
"authorities." So why bother about "traditions?" What is gained thereby?
And why chain ones expressions to some "norm ?" Who benefits?
If one suspects or denies the accuracy op of the information given in the
SECRET DOCTRINE, because of personal likes or dislikes -- I don't believe
that alters the power or depth of the presentation.
On the other hand if we don't read what is there, we will remain ignorant of
certain facts that cold be of great importance.
---------------------------------------

DTB
I do not like labeling or being labeled. It has the disadvantage of being
too cursory. It may be fair to a collection of personalities, but it is too
gross a net to include Individualities.

JHW
Fair enough. But, you labeled yourself. You wrote:

One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one
that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS.

JHE
So, apparently you also see yourself as preferring an essentialist
approach. While all approaches have their advantages and limitations, I
find it interesting that people do find themselves favoring one or
another. I think it is partly a generational thing. Recently two
writers, Strauss and Howe came out with a book called generations. It
is a fascinating study on this subject. It shows, for instance, the
common characteristics of the neo-conservatives and the hippies of
George Bush's generation.
------------------

DTB I do not feel influenced by the time, generation, or any of the
current buzz words or concepts -- I prefer to time tested ones. So I employ
those I find to any situation or problem. One less category to worry about.

I freely agree I prefer being a "generalist." I am not hampered by what
"neighbors" will say. As if that mattered ? Look at history. Whose
records stand out? The hoi polloi, or the Platos and the Pythagorases?
What makes the difference?

---------------------

DTB
Theosophical inter-communication will be of great importance, but every care
must be taken to keep it impersonal, non-partisan, non-proselytizing, while
at the same time a dependable source of information on Theosophical history
as well as philosophy.

JHE
I would say that inter-communication is now and always has been of great
importance. Personal or impersonal? I think that depends upon the
circumstances. I agree that inter-communication is best when non
partisan and non-proselytizing. However, to do that, one must be aware
of when one is partisan and/or proselytizing.
To do that, each Theosophist must learn to step outside of the box, the
tradition, from which he/she came. It reminds me of the story of the
American that
goes to France, and, finally in frustration, yells out, "Isn't there
anyone here who can speak English!" It is only after we are exposed
to, immerse ourselves in other traditions that we come to recognize that
we are also a product of tradition. Sadly, there are some who never
see it--even then.

-----------------------------------------------

DTB One starts by humbly learning French as a language. Pride gets one
nowhere. Everyone can teach us something. Conformity has its price !

----------------------

DTB
It must be so conducted that it will never drift into any kind of a
controlling force. This can always be obviated and guarded against by
continual reiteration and application of the principle of union. "Mental
control" of any kind is contrary to the letter and the spirit of our
Declaration, and that, while Lodges and individuals may seek information,
advice and suggestion, they are not in any way bound in so doing.

JHE
This is interesting. You speak of the "spirit of our Declaration..."
It sounds here that you are part of the ULT tradition, which you have
been active for the last 60 years. Yet, yesterday, you wrote:
]

DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say
I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair,
free of bias, and true to reason and logic.

JHE
Which is it? Do you see yourself as a product of ULT tradition or not?
-----------------------------------------------

DTB I am a product of my own decisions and work. I say that the U L T
method and attitude has been most helpful -- at least I am NOT burdened with
the need to excuse the poor judgment of those who have diverted theosophical
study away from HPB and the Masters.
The History of modern THEOSOPHY is rather well documented and anyone can
makeup their own minds concerning the route followed by individual and
societies.
But I would say that time spent on the study of THEOSOPHY is better than
that spent on studying the "history"(through their writings) of those
individuals who have seemingly influenced many, and caused the splits and
rivalries we now witness in what ought to be a unity. Such a Unity
(originally outlined but Olcott and HPB (see "Key") can only be based on
principles impartially applied and rigidly adhered to.
I freely admit my connection with U L T as the freest and clearest of
the many "organisms" that employ the word "THEOSOPHY"
However, as is said therein (Declaration of U L T ) I reserve my own
individual decision-making power to myself -- as in fact everyone does,
whether they say that they "belong" to one "society" or another, or to none.

-------------------------------

DTB
We did not invent it. It was given to us; we stand in line and pass it
along, as people used to do at fires in passing the buckets of water.

JHE
Yes, that is what is called a tradition.

DTB
People are grateful to the one who passes the "water of life" along to them,
but the "passer" knows where gratitude belongs, and says: "don't thank me;
thank Theosophy-as I do. It enables me to help others; it will also enable
you."

JHE
They indeed are happy. However, it is better that they learn to find
their own "water of life."

=============================

DTB Agreed. More is gained thereby.

thanks and enjoyed,

Dal

-----------

Best wishes,
Jerry

-------- CUT --------------

Consider the following:

"It is futile to accept revelations on anybody’s say-so. They convey no
knowledge, and it is actual knowledge that is required by each one.
Shibboleths and formulas are mere words, not a criterion of truth.

Theosophy is in the world to present the means by which each one can acquire
knowledge for himself. Its study and application call forth the judgment and
discrimination latent in the man himself.

Truth is not a man, nor a book, nor a statement. The nature of Truth is
universal; its possessors in any degree will be found to be appliers of
universality in thought, speech and action. Their efforts will be for
humanity regardless of sex, creed, caste or color. They will never be found
among those claiming to be the chosen spokesman of the Deity—and exacting
homage from their fellow-men: true Brotherhood includes the least developed
as well as the very highest. We must seek to give aid to all in search of
truth.
Our value and aid in this great work will be just what we make them by our
motive, our judgment, our conduct.

The heart-felt desire that others may benefit from our lives will be felt by
those open—it matters little how few; they may be the means of wakening many
others. It is the effort and the sacrifice that bring the ultimate results,
but in our zeal it is well to consider what the Masters have done, and do
year after year, age after age.
They do what They can, when They can, and as They can—in accordance with
cyclic law. They conserve the knowledge gained—and wait. Knowing this, and
doing thus, there can be no room in us for doubt or discouragement.
Theosophy is for those who want it. We are to hold, wait, and work for those
few earnest souls who will grasp the plan and further the Cause. Many have
their ears so dulled, or their attention so diverted, that no number of
repetitions can reach them—yet Theosophy must be held out continually for
all who will listen. That is our self-assumed work; we have our example in
H. P. B. and W. Q. J. to means, method and manner: let us imitate them, and
so do their work in their spirit.

The Theosophical “arch” has been thrown across the abyss of creeds and
materialism. Some have discovered where a base rests on one or the other
side; others have found “stones” that belong to the arch, but the
“key-stone” has been “rejected” because of its irregular shape—all like the
story of old in Masonic tradition. But we are also reminded that the time
came when the rejected stone became “the head of the corner” because it was
found to be the key-stone. All the time there were those who knew of the
key-stone, but they were very few and their voices were not heard amid the
clamor of the claims made by those who had found portions of the arch and
desired recognition. So the few had to “Work, Watch—and ‘Wait,” knowing that
history repeats itself, and that there is nothing new under the sun.

The allegory of the tower of Babel applies to the present times. Everything
is in confusion, everyone talking his own gibberish—and nobody listening. I
said “nobody”—but some are; a few realize that none of these things bring
knowledge. All that can be done is to let the light so shine that all who
will may seek it, thus sowing for future harvest. It would be a hopeless
task were is not for Reincarnation; so the great effort should be to
promulgate the fundamental principles of Unity, of Brotherhood, of Karma and
Reincarnation.

[ Bab-El means: Gateway of the SUN The portal to WISDOM.
It has an esoteric significance, indicating one of the ancient mystery
schools and its teachings -- "within" -- and the confusion -- "without."]

Also:

"What was the religion of the Third and Fourth Races? In the common
acceptation of the term, neither the Lemurians, nor yet their progeny, the
Lemuro-Atlanteans, had any, as they knew no dogma, nor had they to believe
on faith.
No sooner had the mental eye of man been opened to understanding, than the
Third Race felt itself one with the ever-present as the ever to be unknown
and invisible ALL, the One Universal Deity. Endowed with divine powers, and
feeling in himself his inner God, each felt he was a Man-God in his nature,
though an animal in his physical Self.
The struggle between the two began from the very day they tasted of the
fruit of the Tree of Wisdom; a struggle for life between the spiritual and
the psychic, the psychic and the physical. Those who conquered the lower
principles by obtaining mastery over the body, joined the "Sons of Light."
Those who fell victims to their lower natures, became the slaves of Matter.

From "Sons of Light and Wisdom" they ended by becoming the "Sons of

Darkness." They had fallen in the battle of mortal life with Life immortal,
and all those so fallen became the seed of the future generations of
Atlanteans.*
At the dawn of his consciousness, the man of the Third Root Race had thus no
beliefs that could be called religion. That is to say, he was equally as
ignorant of "gay religions, full of pomp and gold" as of any system of faith
or outward worship. But if the term is to be defined as the binding together
of the masses in one form of reverence paid to those we feel higher than
ourselves, of piety — as a feeling expressed by a child toward a loved
parent — then even the earliest Lemurians had a religion — and a most
beautiful one — from the very beginning of their intellectual life. Had they
not their bright gods of the elements around
-------------------------------------

* The name is used here in the sense of, and as a synonym of "sorcerers."
The Atlantean races were many, and lasted in their evolution for millions of
years: all were not bad. They became so toward their end, as we (the fifth)
are fast becoming now.
------------------------------------------------

them, and even within themselves? *
Was not their childhood passed with, nursed and tendered by those who had
given them life and called them forth to intelligent, conscious life? We are
assured it was so, and we believe it.
For the evolution of Spirit into matter could never have been achieved; nor
would it have received its first impulse, had not the bright Spirits
sacrificed their own respective super-ethereal essences to animate the man
of clay, by endowing each of his inner principles with a portion, or rather,
a reflection of that essence.
The Dhyanis of the Seven Heavens (the seven planes of Being) are the
NOUMENOI of the actual and the future Elements, just as the Angels of the
Seven Powers of nature - the grosser effects of which are perceived by us in
what Science is pleased to call the "modes of motion" — the imponderable
forces and what not — are the still higher noumenoi of still higher
Hierarchies. [see S D I 570-5]

It was the "Golden Age" in those days of old, the age when the "gods walked
the earth, and mixed freely with the mortals." Since then, the gods departed
(i.e., became invisible), and later generations ended by worshipping their
kingdoms — the Elements.
It was the Atlanteans, the first progeny of semi-divine man after his
separation into sexes — hence the first-begotten and humanly-born mortals —
who became the first "Sacrificers" to the god of matter.
They stand in the far-away dim past, in ages more than prehistoric, as the
prototype on which the great symbol of Cain was built, † as the first
anthropomorphists who worshipped form and matter. That worship degenerated
very soon into self-worship, thence led to phallicism, or that which reigns
supreme to this day in the symbolisms of every exoteric religion of ritual,
dogma, and form. Adam and Eve became matter, or furnished the soil, Cain and
Abel — the latter the life-bearing soil, the former "the tiller of that
ground or field."
Thus the first Atlantean races, born on the Lemurian Continent, separated
from their earliest tribes into the righteous and the unrighteous; into
those who worshipped the one unseen Spirit of Nature, the ray of which man
feels within himself — or the Pantheists, and those who offered fanatical
worship to the Spirits of the Earth, the dark Cosmic, anthropomorphic
Powers, with whom they made alliance. These were the earliest Gibborim, "the
mighty men of renown in those days" (Gen. vi.); who become with the Fifth
Race the Kabirim: Kabiri with the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, Titans with
the Greeks, and Rakshasas and Daityas with the Indian races.
Such was the secret and mysterious origin of all the subsequent and modern
religions, especially of the worship of the later Hebrews for their tribal
god. At the same time this sexual religion was closely allied to, based upon
and blended, so to say, with astronomical phenomena.
The Lemurians gravitated toward the North Pole, or the Heaven of their
Progenitors (the Hyperborean Continent); the Atlanteans, toward the Southern
Pole, the pit, cosmically and terrestrially — whence breathe the hot
passions blown into hurricanes by the cosmic Elementals, whose abode it is.
The two poles were denominated, by the ancients, Dragons and Serpents —
hence good and bad Dragons and Serpents, and also the names given to the
"Sons of God" (Sons of Spirit and Matter): the good and bad Magicians. This
is the origin of this dual and triple nature in man.
The legend of the "Fallen Angels" in its esoteric signification, contains
the key to the manifold contradictions of human character; it points to the
secret of man's self-consciousness; it is the angle-iron on which hinges his
entire life-cycle; — the history of his evolution and growth.
On a firm grasp of this doctrine depends the correct understanding of
esoteric anthropogenesis. It gives a clue to the vexed question of the
Origin of Evil; and shows how man himself is the separator of the ONE into
various contrasted aspects.
The reader, therefore, will not be surprised if so considerable space is
devoted in each case to an attempt to elucidate this difficult and obscure
subject. A good deal must necessarily be said on its symbological aspect;
because, by so doing, hints are given to the thoughtful student for his own
investigations, and more light can thus be suggested than it is possible to
convey in the technical phrases of a more formal, philosophical exposition.
The "Fallen Angels," so-called, are Humanity itself. The Demon of Pride,
Lust, Rebellion, and Hatred, has never had any being before the appearance
of physical conscious man. It is man who has begotten, nurtured, and allowed
the fiend to develop in his heart; he, again, who has contaminated the
indwelling god in himself, by linking the pure spirit with the impure demon
of matter. And, if the Kabalistic saying, "Demon est Deus inversus" finds
its metaphysical and theoretical corroboration in dual manifested nature,
its practical application is found in Mankind alone.
Thus it has now become self-evident that postulating as we do (a) the
appearance of man before that of other mammalia, and even before the ages of
the huge reptiles; (b) periodical deluges and glacial periods owing to the
karmic disturbance of the axis; and chiefly (c) the birth of man from a
Superior Being, or what materialism would call a supernatural Being, though
it is only super-human — it is evident that our teachings have very few
chances of an impartial hearing.
Add to it the claim that a portion of the Mankind in the Third Race — all
those Monads of men who had reached the highest point of Merit and Karma in
the preceding Manvantara — owed their psychic and rational natures to divine
Beings hypostasizing into their fifth principles, and the Secret Doctrine
must lose caste in the eyes of not only Materialism but even of dogmatic
Christianity.
For, no sooner will the latter have learned that those angels are identical
with their "Fallen" Spirits, than the esoteric tenet will be proclaimed most
terribly heretical and pernicious.*
The divine man dwelt in the animal, and, therefore, when the physiological
separation took place in the natural course of evolution — when also "all
the animal creation was untied," and males were attracted to females — that
race fell: not because they had eaten of the fruit of Knowledge and knew
good from evil, but because they knew no better. Propelled by the sexless
creative instinct, the early sub-races had evolved an intermediate race in
which, as hinted in the Stanzas, the higher Dhyan-Chohans had incarnated. †
"When we have ascertained the extent of the Universe and learnt to know all
that there is in it, we will multiply our race," answer the Sons of Will and
Yoga to their brethren of the same race, who invite them to do as they do.
This means that the great Adepts and Initiated ascetics will "multiply,"
i.e., once more produce Mind-born immaculate Sons — in the Seventh
Root-Race. " S D II 272 - 8